Recommended Posts

Then maybe you should learn to express yourself appropriately and not assume that you're entitled to be taken seriously no matter how horribly you come across. I'm not going to entertain someone who sounds like a Holocaust denier, for instance, even if they really want to talk about the extraordinary difficulty of photography in post WW2-Germany.

Especially given that the point you presented was "social justice is garbage and Danielle brings it up too much" which is exactly the kind of thing we'd get from someone who expects to be taken seriously no matter how horribly they come across. And that you then immediately blamed the moderation team and then everyone else for not giving you the respect you feel you are entitled to.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Then maybe you should learn to express yourself appropriately and not assume that you're entitled to be taken seriously no matter how horribly you come across. I'm not going to entertain someone who sounds like a Holocaust denier, for instance, even if they really want to talk about the extraordinary difficulty of photography in post WW2-Germany.

This is frankly a terrible attitude. You're basically prejudging hate speech before it's said. You're like an email filter trying to evaluate what someone is saying based on what heuristics trigger, and unwilling to examine someone beyond what cluster of internet arguments they might be parroting. Until someone says something, you can't attribute that to them.

Especially given that the point you presented was "social justice is garbage and Danielle brings it up too much" which is exactly the kind of thing we'd get from someone who expects to be taken seriously no matter how horribly they come across.

No, it wasn't. Thanks for making my point about attacking what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying

And that you then immediately blamed the moderation team and then everyone else for not giving you the respect you feel you are entitled to.

I didn't blame the team, I said someone is out of sync with the others in terms of what's been said to me. I assume everyone N-1 on the moderation team is totally on the level and consistent

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The discussion of media literacy made me think of this piece on The Nation about the danger of suppressing viewpoints in an effort to create more progressive society. Not that I think Danielle, Chris or Sean were suggesting we ban South Park but the implication that media literacy is necessary to digest something correctly can and does lead some to consider the inverse. If enough people cannot understand the subtext is it better for it to not exist? I know a lot of my more progressive friends are proudly anti-classical-liberal and don't see a problem with suppressing certain things in an effort to create a more progressive society, but I wonder if using the same tools those we disagree with only makes us the same.

I can't see it any other way. Censorship is censorship no matter what the nature of the content being suppressed. What happens when people disagree on what creates a more progressive society? There is no one sect of society that is infallible and capable of making those decisions. It's one of the legitimate strengths of capitalism, in theory. People essentially vote for what sort of content is acceptable by choosing what material to consume.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I can't see it any other way. Censorship is censorship no matter what the nature of the content being suppressed. What happens when people disagree on what creates a more progressive society? There is no one sect of society that is infallible and capable of making those decisions. It's one of the legitimate strengths of capitalism, in theory. People essentially vote for what sort of content is acceptable by choosing what material to consume.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think we live in too diverse and pluralistic of a society to claim that there is actual censorship happening here. There's still a ton of extraordinarily gross and unthoughtful art being made all the time, much of it extremely successful, regardless of what individual people or groups would LIKE to see happen. Having opinions about what kind of art or media is good or bad or helpful or harmful doesn't constitute censorship as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think we live in too diverse and pluralistic of a society to claim that there is actual censorship happening here. There's still a ton of extraordinarily gross and unthoughtful art being made all the time, much of it extremely successful, regardless of what individual people or groups would LIKE to see happen. Having opinions about what kind of art or media is good or bad or helpful or harmful doesn't constitute censorship as far as I'm concerned.

I apologize if I've given the impression that I'm accusing anyone here of censorship. That was not my intent. I'm just trying to bring a different view point to the conversation, one that I think gets glossed over in our current society's tendency toward sensitivity. I would not bother to post here if I did not respect the forum and find the discussion legitimately interesting.

I think its easy to view a lot of currently successful art as unthoughtful, but there's more validity to it than we think. For example, I think the massive success of The Avengers franchise is a much more telling artistic statement about the nature of our society than it appears on the surface. While it's easy, and completely legitimate, to view these films as only a streamlined cash in on escapism, can't we look at them a something deeper than that? Is it possible that audiences identify with the characters of these films because of a widespread cultural feeling of powerlessness?

Another example is the massive success of The X-Files in the 90's, which signaled a growing dissatisfaction with and mistrust of the federal government. The Fast and the Furious franchise is extremely important in this regard, as its found unprecedented success with a multi-ethnic cast of characters. As is Gravity, with its strong, un-sexualized female lead. These are really significant breakthroughs.

I would think these types of media, while not necessarily the most thought provoking or culturally challenging pieces out there, are still extremely important. I would liken these things to the art we find on pottery from early civilization. It reflects the cultural trends that are currently prevalent in society and helps us identify them so that we can challenge them.

There's equal validity in art that is culturally insensitive, if for no other reason than to put that insensitivity on a platform so that some people can look at it and say "lol look at that idiot," and some people can say "I don't think he's such an idiot," and then those people can talk. All art is valid, because every single person's opinion of it matters.

Edit: The opinionated in a way that is different from me thing is clever.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Gravity's strong, un-sexualized female lead" <-- This is a weird comment to make. I think that I must have watched a different version of the film than you did. Maybe one where Sandra Bullock didn't spend some time in her underwear, and also wasn't just kind of at the whim of whatever weird physics bs the scene called for.

(Yes I know that this is not the point of your comment, and it mostly makes me look like an ass)

(but seriously)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is frankly a terrible attitude. You're basically prejudging hate speech before it's said. You're like an email filter trying to evaluate what someone is saying based on what heuristics trigger, and unwilling to examine someone beyond what cluster of internet arguments they might be parroting. Until someone says something, you can't attribute that to them.

You keep whacking away at that strawman, dude.

"social justice is garbage" is essentially like, a cartoon mastermind or james bond villain position on the world and utterly ridiculous to assume anyone is arguing

It's really, really not. And whatever you believe your point to be is, based on the little you've given us it's uncharitable at the very least and fairly vile at its worst. But whatever, it looks like you've resigned yourself to being interpreted as a jerk.

I don't think it's fair to privilege the kind of speech that large corporations pay for over the kind of speech that expresses how another's speech can cause pain. Requests for silence aren't censorship, quite apart from censorship only ever applying to governments.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Gravity's strong, un-sexualized female lead" <-- This is a weird comment to make. I think that I must have watched a different version of the film than you did. Maybe one where Sandra Bullock didn't spend some time in her underwear, and also wasn't just kind of at the whim of whatever weird physics bs the scene called for.

(Yes I know that this is not the point of your comment, and it mostly makes me look like an ass)

(but seriously)

Yeah.

Okay,

But come on, relative to her role in Speed, where she had to be coached through every stressful situation by the totally competent man who was in charge, its a freaking step up, and deserves some credit.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

...and relative to like, women's roles in silent movies as something you tie to a train track, they've come a long way, baby!

It's 2014, and Gravity, the film you are giving credit for because of it's "strong female role" still needs to have g-g-g-g-ghost George Clooney appear to help ol' Sandy B in her moment of crisis. She can't get through it by herself! Heck, the Avengers, the other film you held up as a "massive success" has what, three women characters with lines? And all three were sexualized to some extent.

I don't think we should censor art. I think we should stop rewarding oppressive art. The problem with South Park is exactly what has been espoused by many in this thread: there are many people who don't understand satire, and that's a failure of our culture to educate. But I think that the artist is to blame if they are creating oppressive art without understanding the ramifications. South Park is created by two dudes, in a kind of whirlwind fashion. A lot of it is very smart. Is every bit of writing perfect, and well thought out? Nope! In the eyes of a public that has not been well versed in critical thinking, this could get bad, and some of the blame most definitely goes to Parker and Stone. They don't get a pass because it's satire. Nobody gets a pass because it's satire.

It is never all right to declare someone "too sensitive." If you offended someone, you offended someone. This idea that we're living in a society that is way too sensitive and can't take a joke? To me, that's BS. Art is art is art. Comedy is comedy is comedy. I'll fight forever for people to make both, but I won't support oppressive media, and I definitely want to hear when someone is offended.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is never all right to declare someone "too sensitive." If you offended someone, you offended someone. This idea that we're living in a society that is way too sensitive and can't take a joke? To me, that's BS. Art is art is art. Comedy is comedy is comedy. I'll fight forever for people to make both, but I won't support oppressive media, and I definitely want to hear when someone is offended.

And I don't, because true empowerment is elevating someone's self worth to the point where a thirty minute cartoon or a bad name doesn't throw it out of whack. We're sitting here debating the oppressive nature of images of Sandra Bullock in her underwear. How much more first world can we get? You use the word oppression like any of this actually qualifies. Real oppression involves blood and death.

I watch my girlfriend struggle every day with insecurity over her self image that is created by images of femininity in media and it drives me up the wall, because I see her as beautiful. However, those images aren't going to go away. They generate money, and money is, sadly, actually what makes the world go round.

If we can elevate a person's view of themselves, so that exploitative images no longer hold any kind of power over them, we take away the monetary value of those images, and truly grow. If we subdue those images to protect people from exposure to them, we only reinforce the power that they have and make them more valuable.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And I don't, because true empowerment is elevating someone's self worth to the point where a thirty minute cartoon or a bad name doesn't throw it out of whack. We're sitting here debating the oppressive nature of images of Sandra Bullock in her underwear. How much more first world can we get? You use the word oppression like any of this actually qualifies. Real oppression involves blood and death.

Ugh, I understand and agree with some of what you're saying, but you don't need to lapse into a fallacy of relative privation and the oppression olympics. There's no reason we can't talk about both topics here, on an internet forum of friends.

"insecurity over her self image that is created by images of femininity in media"

This is oppression. You are arguing that we have to fight the symptoms of the illness, not the cause. You can't elevate a person's view of themselves until you fight the culture that makes it ok for us to oppress.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Gravity's strong, un-sexualized female lead" <-- This is a weird comment to make. I think that I must have watched a different version of the film than you did. Maybe one where Sandra Bullock didn't spend some time in her underwear, and also wasn't just kind of at the whim of whatever weird physics bs the scene called for.

Interesting you say that! Bullock apparently argued against the producers so that she didn't have to be in underwear, but she and Cuaron had to concede to them because, well, they're the movie's producers. So perhaps it was a gross studio thing? I unno', but I doubt Cuaron and his son's intentions were to exploit their character. What's even more interesting is, despite that, they kinda didn't actually end up being male gazey and gross about it? It just happens to be a thing. I can't really remember any shot where they close in on her butt or whatever, other than circumstantial moments where the camera was focusing on the fire that was going on in that ship (spoilers?). And they even seemed to make use of her more revealing look to emphasize the theme of rebirth and fertile innocence. I mean, she enters the ship, goes into a fetal position, and a rope or something just happens to float in a way that it looks like an umbilical chord. Not at all subtle, but the intention of having the character to be titillating was lost from the moment she takes off the suit. It reminded me a lot of the scen

The mainsplaining was pretty stupid and useless, probably my least favorite scene. But I'm pretty sure it's not Cuaron saying "A man's gotta explain this to tha lady!". but perhaps more in line with his somewhat naive love for magical realism. He probably expected it to be cute and hopeful, like most of his magical realist scenes happen to be like (the ending of Children of Men, most of A Little Princess, the narration in Y Tu Mama Tambien). It's still inexcusable, I agree.

I don't follow you on the physics stuff though. They took a lot of liberties obviously, but I don't see that as being meant to make her seem useless or clumsy. I mean, she gets out of every situation by herself nearly unscathed, and even risks her life once on her own volition. You know what I mean. That part? Yeah that one, it was kinda silly, but holy shit that was cool. Anyway, I really don't see the problem there at all, to the point that I have no counterargument (even though I'm not arguing against your opinion, just trying to give a bit of context to things). I just don't see it. Gravity is definitely not the most progressive film out there, but I don't feel its right to demonize and categorize it as oppressive, specially when many female critics (not all of them) have come to admire the character. I dunno', that's my two cents.

I agree with you 100% that art that is oppressive is bullshit and lame, obviously. It's even worse for me, as a Latino, who has to endure the many bullshit stuff that colors my culture and race as being sombrero wearing taco eaters, specially in comedy. What a load of shit.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It's tough to phrase this argument without accidentally marginalizing the problem with the wrong language. Physical oppression involves blood and death. The problem that we are talking about is very different. These images, these words, they're immaterial. When we look at something and an emotional response is triggered, that response does not come from the object, or the image, or the word, it comes from within us, within our minds, and we are giving the object, the image, or the word power over us by letting it affect us.

I don't think exploitation of women in media is the cause of the problem. It is a symptom. The cold hard fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be so prevalent if it didn't work. Truly fighting and changing the culture that produces those images has to start at an individual, intimate level, because public outcry is only going to draw attention to them and give them more power. Getting a woman to recognize the inherent stupidity in a doctored photograph is the only way I can see of removing that photograph's ability to hurt her, because I look at doctored photographs of men with accordions for abdomens and think "That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen," and, thus, it has no power over me. I refuse to believe that a woman is somehow physically incapable of doing the same.

Historically, cultural exploited groups of people have only truly overcome the exploitation by owning the stereotypes, becoming immune to the pain that they cause, and letting their power fade away. It doesn't happen over night, but it does happen.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The cold hard fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be so prevalent if it didn't work. Truly fighting and changing the culture that produces those images has to start at an individual, intimate level, because public outcry is only going to draw attention to them and give them more power.

Historically, cultural exploited groups of people have only truly overcome the exploitation by owning the stereotypes, becoming immune to the pain that they cause, and letting their power fade away. It doesn't happen over night, but it does happen.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The oppression those people were fighting was a very different thing than a bad word on television show.

True, but the point here was to refute your assertion that oppression is fought through ignoring and just taking it in. No matter the level of oppression it is, it's best to stand up for what is right, as trite and cliche as that may sound. I'd rather speak up against someone saying bullshit rather than hear him blather over it over and over. No one wins against malice if they close their mouths and think everyone will be fine, if I ignore it, the oppressors won't say that crap anymore. That's elementary school logic there. Like, literally, not figuratively . Kids are told that by ignoring the bullies, they'd stop it. Of course, they rarely ever stop being bullies, and when they do, it's because they found another morsel to chew on.

And a calling a derogatory word "a bad word" is also literal elementary school thinking. "Fuck" is a bad word". "Asshole" and "shit" are bad words. " "Slut", "whore", "bitch, or, if you wanna be really derogatory, "n***er" are words that have oppressive, demeaning definitions and history behind them, and must be used under specific and well-thought contexts. If you're making a film about racism, or sexism, or have characters that are that way specifically, it makes sense to use those words, but in order to use them in off handed ways, or to use them at the expense of a joke towards oppressed people, that's just fucking heavy handed, lazy, gross, and 100% unnecessary.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Getting a woman to recognize the inherent stupidity in a doctored photograph is the only way I can see of removing that photograph's ability to hurt her, because I look at doctored photographs of men with accordions for abdomens and think "That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen," and, thus, it has no power over me. I refuse to believe that a woman is somehow physically incapable of doing the same.

Historically, cultural exploited groups of people have only truly overcome the exploitation by owning the stereotypes, becoming immune to the pain that they cause, and letting their power fade away. It doesn't happen over night, but it does happen.

Yeah, minorities should shut up and get over it. Women need to shut up and deal with crazy cultural ideas of beauty because, as a man, it doesn't affect me.

Slurs are oppressive and harmful, dude. It's different to be a woman than it is to be a man. I'm trying not to be snarky, but I can't.

This thread was doing so well ok, too!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We should step back a moment and notice how easily in discussions of this nature things get pushed out to the extremes.'Could be misinterpreted in a gross way' became straight-up 'oppressive' really quickly and nearly invisibly.